Allowed

Vikas Harishankar Giri v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC18 Mar 2024IA/1077/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an interim application in Criminal Appeal No.282/2024 concerning a Section 304 Part II IPC conviction, the Single Judge suspended the sentenced appellant's imprisonment and enlarged him on bail with fresh bonds, imposing a condition to report annually to the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Sentence suspended; applicant enlarged on bail with fresh bonds; ordered to report to trial court annually; applications disposed of.

Vikas Harishankar Giri Vs State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

024:BHC-AS:2

¶2

Diksha Rane 30 APEAL 28224.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.282/2024 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1077/2024 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1075/2024 IN

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.282/2024

¶6

VIKAS HARISHANKAR GIRI ..APPELLANT VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..RESPONDENT

¶7

Adv. K. H. Giri a/w. Adv. Pratik Yadav and Adv. Gaurav Borse for the applicant/appellant.

¶8

Mr. B. B. Kulkarni, APP for the State.

¶9

CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J.

¶10

DATE : MARCH 18, 2024.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

1. Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant seeks

¶13

leave to implead the legal heir of the victim as a party respondent no.2.

¶14

2. Amendment to be carried out within a period of four weeks from today.

¶15

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.282/2024

¶16

3. Admit.

¶17

1/3

¶18

Diksha Rane 30 APEAL 28224.doc

¶19

4. Call for record and proceeding.

¶20

5. Learned APP waives service on behalf of the State.

¶21

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1077/2024 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1075/2024 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.282/2024

¶22

6. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP for the State.

¶23

7. These are the applications for suspension of sentence and bail. The sentence awarded for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code by the trial Court is three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment of one month. The fine amount has been paid.

¶24

8. Learned APP opposed the applications for suspension of sentence and bail. Learned APP submitted that for the cogent reasons and after appreciation of the evidence on record, the trial Court has convicted the applicant.

¶25

9. With the assistance of learned counsel for the applicant, I have perused the judgment and order of the trial Court and the materials on record. The applicant was in pre-

¶26

2/3

¶27

Diksha Rane 30 APEAL 28224.doc

¶28

trial custody for a period of one month. The applicant was on bail during the trial. There is nothing on record to indicate that the applicants had misused his liberty while on bail. Considering the duration of sentence and as the appeal is unlikely to be heard in near future, I am inclined to suspend the sentence and to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶29

10. The sentence is suspended. The applicant be enlarged on same bail as before the trial Court but with fresh bonds.

¶30

11. The applicant shall report to the trial Court once in a year, on first Monday of the concerned month, between 11.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m., commencing April, 2024.

¶31

12. The applications are disposed of.

¶32

(M. S. KARNIK, J.)

¶33

3/3

¶34

Signed by: Diksha Rane Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 18/03/2024 18:28:20

Vikas Harishankar Giri v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikas Harishankar Giri v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukhtar Nasir Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra

Satish Vijay Shevale Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Faiyaz Ibrahim Nakhuda @ Sannata Vs State of Maharashtra

Yashwant Govind Sathe Vs Uday Hari Behere and Ors.

Rachappa Mahadevappa Patil and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra

Vikas Harishankar Giri Vs State of Maharashtra